Had the police called on me

[snowman46919]

It is a shame that many citizens are becoming conditioned to being afraid of concealed weapons. I think the media is mostly to blame for planting that fear.

How can you fear something you never see? That is the thing people that know I carry absolutely FREAK when I open carry. When I conceal and something starts happening that seems shady or it is time to leave they are the first to lean over and whisper in my ear,"you have your gun right?!"

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I talked with Brian S on the phone the other day, and I talked David L today. I actually just got off the phone with him. I'm being courteous and letting him post first if he wants to.

I will say I'm not really happy as a result of the phone call.

 

[Roadie]

Then by all means, don't renew your driver's license and carry a handgun without a LTCH in Indiana. Just don't get upset when your "these actions aren't illegal!" argument doesn't go over well in your trial.



People pick two lines out of a multipage document to quote. It actually applies the exact same. If you find a person carrying a gun in a car, they still have to be legal. Washington has to do with searching a vehicle under the guise of "officer safety" to retrieve a handgun when the driver has been:
#1: Removed from the vehicle
#2: Handcuffed

The "officer safety" exception to the search didn't apply because the court seemed to figure that given #1 and #2, there wasn't an officer safety aspect to worry about.

The Richardson ruling has to do with further investigations when the sole reason for the detainment is a violation of Indiana's seat belt law, and the officer thought she saw a gun (she admits it was only a bulge). The officer being correct in the end still doesn't allow for questions about weapons when no weapon is actually seen. I wonder if Richardson would have been ruled upon differently had the gun been out in the open?

I think you are missing my point. Driving a car isn't illegal, in and of itself. When one is cited for driving w/o a License, is the charge "driving a car"?

Again, the act is not illegal, (be it carrying or driving), not meeting the conditions is what is illegal.

You previous premise was that carrying a gun is illegal, I dispute that and say that instead, it is not meeting the conditions which is illegal.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Maybe it will finally sink in this time: A US Supreme Court case dictates what LEOs can do when they see any person out and about driving a car. This is how it is different. Not sure why folks can't grasp that concept: Prior to the court ruling, it was legal for officers to just stop someone to see if they were licensed, after the ruling, not legal. US Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the question of reasonable suspicion when it comes to OCing and a law like Indiana has. No insurance and "wrong registration" are a moot points, as those are infractions, not misdemeanors or felonies.



I have only been on one where the outcome was the person did have a gun. He was legal. The others were all unfounded, so the legality of their carrying is unknown. I have ran a few LTCH that have been revoked and/or suspended. I have also read other police reports where folks were arrested because they were carrying, had a license in their possession, but said license was not valid for whatever reason. Check out the appeals court case of Shaft Jones v. State of Indiana (A Fort Wayne case) for an example of prior licensed folks carrying in violation of the law. Or maybe the case of Justin Floyd v. State of Indiana. The fact is, there are plenty of examples of MWAG where the person isn't legal. These are only the cases where the cops actually end up arresting someone and they go to appeal and thus we are able to search for them. There are countless MWAG calls that are labeled as "unfounded" for a variety of reasons.

Given the number of folks that I have proof of carrying in violation of the law, why would I or anyone else assume all MWAG calls must be legal carriers?

why do you seem so "out to get" people? in most of your post regarding guns I get this feeling about you.

 

[Roadie]

I talked with Brian S on the phone the other day, and I talked David L today. I actually just got off the phone with him. I'm being courteous and letting him post first if he wants to.

I will say I'm not really happy as a result of the phone call.

Oh just spill it. lol

 

[grizman]

why do you seem so "out to get" people? in most of your post regarding guns I get this feeling about you.

Because it's the mean streets man! Perps packin', layin' in wait, Showin' bogus LTCH all the time to lul the "man" into a lapse of total control in order to bust a cap in em!


" Because officer safety revokes all constitutional rights! Even changes Innocent until proven Quilty into Guilty until I say otherwise! " Officer (insert name here)

Seriuosly last statistic I heard IIRC(FBI) was less than .02% of persons issued LTCH ever commit a crime with a Firearm. That means even if a LTCH is revoked or suspended 99.98% of the time LEO's are safe. Wow I can see the reason for the JBT attitude when citizens have firearms!

That clear it up folks!!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Oh just spill it. lol

I did here.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._to_act_where_do_you_stand-9.html#post1778256

Dave L also has posted in that thread.

 

[Indy317]

You previous premise was that carrying a gun is illegal, I dispute that and say that instead, it is not meeting the conditions which is illegal.

I don't think I have ever said that "carrying a gun is illegal." I've said that it is illegal if you don't have a LTCH and/or are a member of a certain group of individuals. What I'm trying to say is that to me, based on court rulings, an LEO would have reasonable suspicion to stop, detain, and investigate an individual in Indiana if the LEO saw the individual carrying a handgun. Eventually, a court may rule otherwise, like the US Supreme Court did with the mere driving of a vehicle on a street.

My comments are to be taken as a possibility. If a LTCH is stopped because they are OCing, and they want to resist the detainment, not show their license, by all means, they should do what they want. I'm only providing an opinion that such actions could get one charged with a crime (resisting LE, battery on LE, disorderly conduct, carrying a handgun w/o a license, etc..). Some folks on here are saying there is no legal right for an LEO to detain a person OCing a handgun in Indiana. I'm saying there might be, due to a lack of court rulings on this issue. In the end, I guess folks will make their own decision. They will either comply with all the demands of an LEO, comply with some, or comply with none.

This issues wouldn't be issues if we had Constitutional Carry!

why do you seem so "out to get" people?

I can't answer a question only you have the answer too.

in most of your post regarding guns I get this feeling about you.

Then you already know your answer to your above question.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I wonder what other constitutional rights and state laws that manager does not allow in his restaurant.

Private property bro... you can't cite rights when a property owner, or agent of, makes a request. Now if your taxes are funding his operation, then I'd see the issue.

All in all, I think the cops did a fine job. OC is a political statement, one which I support, but it will take a long time with episodes like this to make it seem natural. As a society, we have been conditioned for almost 100 years now that carrying a gun is an anomaly. We need to keep our cool, not be beligerant, and just press on. These episodes will repeat and we must be patient.

Fine? I'm not so sure (though I can respect them being polite). The officers should have never placed their hands, or even reached, in the OP's direction. That how stuff gets started. Further, had it been me, I would have been satisfied with his permit, and never asked for his ID (which he had every right to refuse giving). It's all about smart policing. I doubt the OP was going to have a nice civil meal with his wife, and then commence to going postal on the other patrons.

Honestly, I would have walked up to the manager first, and asked "does he stay or does he go?" And whatever decision he made, it would be his responsibility to tell the customer. I'm only there so it doesnt get rowdy.

 

[Roadie]

I don't think I have ever said that "carrying a gun is illegal." I've said that it is illegal if you don't have a LTCH and/or are a member of a certain group of individuals. What I'm trying to say is that to me, based on court rulings, an LEO would have reasonable suspicion to stop, detain, and investigate an individual in Indiana if the LEO saw the individual carrying a handgun. Eventually, a court may rule otherwise, like the US Supreme Court did with the mere driving of a vehicle on a street.

My comments are to be taken as a possibility. If a LTCH is stopped because they are OCing, and they want to resist the detainment, not show their license, by all means, they should do what they want. I'm only providing an opinion that such actions could get one charged with a crime (resisting LE, battery on LE, disorderly conduct, carrying a handgun w/o a license, etc..). Some folks on here are saying there is no legal right for an LEO to detain a person OCing a handgun in Indiana. I'm saying there might be, due to a lack of court rulings on this issue. In the end, I guess folks will make their own decision. They will either comply with all the demands of an LEO, comply with some, or comply with none.

This issues wouldn't be issues if we had Constitutional Carry!



I can't answer a question only you have the answer too.



Then you already know your answer to your above question.

I have a pretty good memory

It really isn't that hard. The carrying of a handgun upon your person in Indiana is a crime. That is the crime being investigated. That is the possible criminal conduct. What other possible crimes should LEOs ignore and not investigate until we have absolute proof a crime has been committed? Should LEOs ignore someone breaking into a car or business because they might be the owner of the property? Should LEOs have to wait till the owner actually discovers the crime and initiates a report to investigate?



The arbitrary piece of paper ceases the possibility of a criminal act taking place. That is why they have to check. Don't want this, press for constitutional carry in Indiana.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Fine? I'm not so sure (though I can respect them being polite). The officers should have never placed their hands, or even reached, in the OP's direction.

Honestly, I would have walked up to the manager first, and asked "does he stay or does he go?" And whatever decision he made, it would be his responsibility to tell the customer. I'm only there so it doesnt get rowdy.

Those are my only problems with how the officers handled this. I was never asked by any employee or anyone else to cover up or leave. Prior to being informed by the officer I had to cover up or leave.

And while not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure the police under the trespassing statute are not allowed to do that.
Indiana Code 35-43-2

 

[Hotdoger]

This was a good story to read. Reminds me why I'm looking into getting a CCW capable firearm instead of carrying my G23 in the open. All the meanwhile I own a Fobus holster that clearly is not concealable as it's OWB .

Quick question for you - You mentioned LPD. Would you be speaking of the Lebanon Police Department? I ask because that very same PD strongly urged against open carry upon the application process on my LTCH. Apparently it's a "quiet town" and people can get the wrong impression seeing me with my gun in public.

Because well... You know. Somebody LEGALLY wearing a handgun in the OPEN is going to commit a crime.. Sarcasm detected?

The police chief ,Tom Garoffolo, said that to you?

 

[Indy317]

I have a pretty good memory

Why didn't you bold this part as well?

"The arbitrary piece of paper ceases the possibility of a criminal act taking place."

 

[Roadie]

Why didn't you bold this part as well?

"The arbitrary piece of paper ceases the possibility of a criminal act taking place."

Uhm, because that wasnt the subject of the conversation?

You said that you didnt say carrying a gun was illegal. I was just reminding you that you did.

 

[Spazzmodicus]

So in all honesty would not it make more sense to carry the thing concealed and avoid all the other mess? It is a fact of life in our society that many people don't feel comfortable seeing someone openly carrying a firearm,especially in a family type place like you were at. Think about it man.

I concur completely. I carry all over the place and have peace of mind and never any issues because of concealment. Massaad Ayoob, a 30-year New Hampshire leo and writer for Gun Digest articles and other publications said in so many words that only the most novice handgunner would choose to open carry, because of potential problems with offended people and those set on dis-arming the carrier for whatever reason.

The mantra of the 'open carry' people is always "show me where somebody open carrying is made a target or had some negative event happen to them because of open carry". May I remind those so minded that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In his book "The Gun Digest Book Of Concealed Carry", Ayoob does just that; gives detailed accounts. He gives multiple instances where open carry got the carrier dis-armed or killed. Two of the situations described were ironically a couple of gun shops in Indiana.

The above event detailed by the OP is just the tip of the iceberg. Things can go very wrong very quickly when open carrying.....the carrier is entirely dependent upon the mental and emotional health and stability of those they carry around. Sorry, but trusting that some whack job won't attempt to grab my gun while I'm not looking at them isn't very wise in my opinion.

It's a free country and people can carry however they choose but the potential to do harm to the reputation of the gun owners community in the court of "public opinion" is greater when open carrying.

Although the above event detailed by the OP happened in a family restaurant, it's just as important to carry there, or at the grocery store, or at the day care, etc. But concealment, in order to among other things, keep from offending those sensitive to the issue just makes much more sense. We are often reminded to "not forget 911".......but the gun community should also remind all to "not forget Killeen, TX" .

 

[Brian S.]

May I remind those so minded that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Actually, it is.

This may sound nit-picky but it always gets under my skin when people say this. Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but it certainly IS evidence.

 

[protias]

I concur completely. I carry all over the place and have peace of mind and never any issues because of concealment. Massaad Ayoob, a 30-year New Hampshire leo and writer for Gun Digest articles and other publications said in so many words that only the most novice handgunner would choose to open carry, because of potential problems with offended people and those set on dis-arming the carrier for whatever reason.

The mantra of the 'open carry' people is always "show me where somebody open carrying is made a target or had some negative event happen to them because of open carry". May I remind those so minded that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In his book "The Gun Digest Book Of Concealed Carry", Ayoob does just that; gives detailed accounts. He gives multiple instances where open carry got the carrier dis-armed or killed. Two of the situations described were ironically a couple of gun shops in Indiana.

The above event detailed by the OP is just the tip of the iceberg. Things can go very wrong very quickly when open carrying.....the carrier is entirely dependent upon the mental and emotional health and stability of those they carry around. Sorry, but trusting that some whack job won't attempt to grab my gun while I'm not looking at them isn't very wise in my opinion.

It's a free country and people can carry however they choose but the potential to do harm to the reputation of the gun owners community in the court of "public opinion" is greater when open carrying.

Although the above event detailed by the OP happened in a family restaurant, it's just as important to carry there, or at the grocery store, or at the day care, etc. But concealment, in order to among other things, keep from offending those sensitive to the issue just makes much more sense. We are often reminded to "not forget 911".......but the gun community should also remind all to "not forget Killeen, TX" .

If people are offended by someone carrying, then they need to have their feelings checked. Also, can you share in Ayoob's book where he shows OCers are targets?

 

[Kutnupe14]

If people are offended by someone carrying, then they need to have their feelings checked. Also, can you share in Ayoob's book where he shows OCers are targets?

Explain why someone (a non-gun owner) shouldnt be offended or slightly concerned. I'm interested to see answers to this.

 

[Roadie]

Explain why someone (a non-gun owner) shouldnt be offended or slightly concerned. I'm interested to see answers to this.

Explain why they should be..

This has been discussed before.

• Why shouldn't people be offended/concerned by someone in a Burka refusing to uncover their face for ID?
• Why shouldn't people be offended/concerned by a black man walking at nite in a "white" neighborhood?
• Why shouldn't people be offended/concerned by a bunch of young men in baggy pants hanging out around your business?
• Why shouldn't people be offended by two gay men holding hand, and kissing on a public street?

None of the people I listed above were doing anything illegal, nor is the gun owner who is open carrying.

 

[Roadie]

I concur completely. I carry all over the place and have peace of mind and never any issues because of concealment. Massaad Ayoob, a 30-year New Hampshire leo and writer for Gun Digest articles and other publications said in so many words that only the most novice handgunner would choose to open carry, because of potential problems with offended people and those set on dis-arming the carrier for whatever reason.

The mantra of the 'open carry' people is always "show me where somebody open carrying is made a target or had some negative event happen to them because of open carry". May I remind those so minded that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In his book "The Gun Digest Book Of Concealed Carry", Ayoob does just that; gives detailed accounts. He gives multiple instances where open carry got the carrier dis-armed or killed. Two of the situations described were ironically a couple of gun shops in Indiana.

The above event detailed by the OP is just the tip of the iceberg. Things can go very wrong very quickly when open carrying.....the carrier is entirely dependent upon the mental and emotional health and stability of those they carry around. Sorry, but trusting that some whack job won't attempt to grab my gun while I'm not looking at them isn't very wise in my opinion.

It's a free country and people can carry however they choose but the potential to do harm to the reputation of the gun owners community in the court of "public opinion" is greater when open carrying.

Although the above event detailed by the OP happened in a family restaurant, it's just as important to carry there, or at the grocery store, or at the day care, etc. But concealment, in order to among other things, keep from offending those sensitive to the issue just makes much more sense. We are often reminded to "not forget 911".......but the gun community should also remind all to "not forget Killeen, TX" .

So, in other words, shut up and go sit down at the back of the bus?

I'm sorry, people get all uptight when I compare carrying a gun to Civil rights, but it IS a Civil Right. One outlined in the 2nd Amendment.

As I posted above, would you tell a black man to stay out of a white area as to not offend?
Would you tell a gay person to hide who they are as to not offend?

Why is it that when someone argues that, for example, gays being more vocal, and more "out", that it is a good thing because the public gets used to the idea by more exposure, but when gun owners try to accomplish the same thing, we are offensive and should hide?